The single worst thing that happened to public school since I've been teaching (1993) was No Child Left Behind and tying federal funding to a set of statewide performance measures including test scores in Reading and Math.

When it was first passed I was hopeful, because ESOL and SPED students were required to be included in the testing, so I felt finally our school districts would start caring about the performance of my ESOL students, and maybe start offering more summer school or after school tutoring to quickly catch students up who were behind.

No such luck.

Instead, over time, we have just had more and more focus on reading and math instruction only, and less and less instruction in science and almost no instruction in Social Studies (in elementary school). Students lack so much basic knowledge in the content area.

It just got worse and worse and worse. Every Child Succeeds Act tried to remove the most onerous testing requirements, but we still have plenty. And now there's a federal requirement that teacher evaluations, in part, be based on student test score improvement. Which seems like it should be OK, but to be fair to teachers (some of whom teach students who are very below grade level, or don't teach students in "high stakes test" subjects - we have had to design very stupid Beg of Year, Mid of Year and End of Year tests for EACH subject and EACH grade level so students can be tested in EVERY subject so their teachers can show they have made progress with their students.

So students are getting BOY, MOY and EOY tests in math, science, reading, Social Studies, Music, Art, PE, ESOL... as well as the required state testing in the end of the year. As well as the progress monitoring for phonics and reading comprehesion. I think 40% of student day is spent testing, test prep, or makeup testing, especially now mid-year.

It is AWFUL and one thing I would not mind about the Dept of Ed getting smaller would be if the testing mandates go away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things are so bad and the DofE seems to have been the impetus for the decades-long downturn. What could POSSIBLY be worse than what all these "experts" have done to our once-great school system anyway? I say, get rid of them all and let schools be locally designed and run.

schools ARE locally designed and run.

Seriously, the stupidity of these people.

Anonymous wrote:Things are so bad and the DofE seems to have been the impetus for the decades-long downturn. What could POSSIBLY be worse than what all these "experts" have done to our once-great school system anyway? I say, get rid of them all and let schools be locally designed and run.

schools ARE locally designed and run.

Anonymous wrote:Block grants to states. Education in well run states will improve. Education in poorly run states will remain the same or drop off.

You mean no grants to states.

I don't have a real dog in this fight but it's hard to argue with the fact that the quality of our students has steadily decreased over the last 40-50 years. I 1000% believe too many bureaucrats and administrators at both the federal and state level are a large part of the problem. We spend so much on each student and a too large percentage leave high school barely literate. It's insane and would not be tolerated at a private company. I say give this a shot and see what happens.

Title I funding (low-income school funding) is indeed administered by Dept of Education but they just pass the funding to local school districts. Which areas are eligible is determined by Census data.

I taught Title I in 1970. I think it was created in 1967. There was no Dept of Education at that time. I think it came through HEW. At that time, the funds followed the student. Today, it is administered differently and the schools with a certain percentage of disadvantaged students are deemed Title I schools.

There are advantages and disadvantages both ways. If you had a class of 28 students and 24 of them get Title I funding, it is difficult to exclude the other four who do not get Title I funds.

I think it will be a net gain for students. This was just added bureaucracy on top of state bureaucracy.

Their student loans were terrible too. My fed loans had twice the interest rates of my private ones. Whyyy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not illegal. Trump is in charge of it and has the authority. What can happen is that the necessary programs like FAFSA, Pell grants, etc. can be sent out to contractors or back to HEW/HHSwhere ED came from (HEW). Unnecessary programs (and there are many) return to the states. I was a high ranking officer there supervisong over 100. They could all be fired tomorrow .. all of them. The waste and bloat was unbelievable.

Not true. It is 100% illegal what he has done to USAID. The executive branch does not have the authority to shut down an agency that was created by an act of congress and funded by them. You are the reason our democracy is crumbling. Please move to another country, you obviously don’t live this one or understand how a democratic government works. We used to be a nation of laws. But you believe certain people are above the law. You suck and highly partisan, warped viewpoint is disgusting and unAmerican

USAID was Created by Executive Order; get your facts straight if you want to lecture others. Funding is authorized by Congress, but Congress delegated creation of an agency to the executive branch.

How about you get your facts straight

Can the President Dissolve USAID Without An Act of Congress?
No, not lawfully. In 1961, USAID was created by an E.O. issued by President John F. Kennedy (E.O. 10973), based in part on authority provided in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. But a later act of Congress (The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 22 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) established USAID as its own agency. In a section titled “Status of AID” (22 U.S.C. 6563) it states:

a) In general
Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization plan submitted under section 6601 of this title, and except as provided in section 6562 of this title, there is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title 5. (emphasis added)

The key language here is “there is within the Executive branch of Government [USAID]” (see sections 6562/6563). Those are the words Congress uses to establish an agency within the executive branch. It would take an act of Congress to reverse that – simply put, the president may not unilaterally override a statute by executive order.

https://www.justsecurity.org/107267/can-president-dissolve-usaid-by-executive-order/

Anonymous wrote:It's not illegal. Trump is in charge of it and has the authority. What can happen is that the necessary programs like FAFSA, Pell grants, etc. can be sent out to contractors or back to HEW/HHSwhere ED came from (HEW). Unnecessary programs (and there are many) return to the states. I was a high ranking officer there supervisong over 100. They could all be fired tomorrow .. all of them. The waste and bloat was unbelievable.

Stop with your BS. It is absolutely illegal and unconstitutional. He does not have the authority to unilaterally defund or decommission a congressionally-created governmental entity.

Anonymous wrote:What about IDEA? It ensures every child receives an appropriate education, and I’m not certain the Dept of Justice or Labor is the best place to ensure students have access to the curriculum.

This was mentioned on a another forum, but we probably don't have to worry about DOE being completely dismantled. For those interested in preserving the Department of Education as a cabinet level agency, there was some good news announced last week. "James Bergeron was named Deputy Under Secretary of Education. He has strong affiliations with the moderate and institutional type of education policy Republicans in DC. While in the past he has worked for conservatives such as Tom Tancredo, much of his education policy work was as a Director for the House Education Committee. He’s mentored and hired many of the moderate education policy staffers through the years such as Brad Thomas who is still on the House Education Committee serving as the lead K-12 Republican education staffer. The Under Secretary’s office manages higher education and the Deputy Secretary nominee is Penny Schwinn. The Deputy Secretary usually takes the lead in implementing K-12 education. She has received high praise from previous Department leaders such as King, Duncan, and Spellings. In fact, both picks have strong ties to the moderates and those at the Bipartisan Policy Center that former Secretary of Education Spellings leads. This week the Bipartisan Policy Center had a big education event with many of the usual think tank and beltway players that support the Department’s current role as a cabinet agency. Both Bergeron and Schwinn have strong ties with these more moderate individuals."

Regarding IDEA, most of the proposals have it going to HHS. The author of the bill with the most support is clear that it doesn't touch IDEA, except for moving it to HHS. If you read the bill, that's all it does. However, saying all of that, there aren't the votes in Congress to make this happen. This came up for a vote last Congress and eliminating the Department of Education was strongly opposed. There are other things the Administration could do at DOE, but it should remain a cabinet agency, so that's a bit of good news for those who are concerned.

A big part of "making America great again" has to include an investment in education, specifically STEM. It was a key component of China becoming the world's sole manufacturing superpower, and Trump/Vance's agenda doesn't work without it.